Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by Oilura, Oct 12, 2014.

  1. abentwookie

    abentwookie Active Member

    This is one of my personal favorite philosophical debates. I was actually discussing this topic recently with a few people at school. Ultimately, we don't know if the reality we experience is actually real. Yes, we could all just be brains in a vat. We have no way of knowing. However, we can usually determine if events are true in the reality we experience by examining the evidence. We can show that events such WW2 happened in our reality through several methods, such as historical records, archaeology, etc...

    The Harry Potter example is actually interesting. We do know that the book is categorized as fiction but can we actually determine that the world of Harry Potter doesn't exist? Well, to an extent, yes. :p The problem is that in Harry Potter we would be living in the Muggle World (no magic) and Muggles can't see Hogwarts due to magical protections. So how would we know that Hogwarts doesn't actually exist? :eek:: Now before everyone gets excited about getting your own wands and flying around on brooms, I should point out that we also have no way of knowing that it IS real and have no evidence to support it's existence. We can't possibly know either way. We can ASSUME it doesn't based on what we know about our reality but we can't actually know for a fact.
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2015
  2. Mordewolt

    Mordewolt Well-Known Member

    Your brain gets the signal from your receptors at a very limited speed, the taller you are the longer it takes for it to get to the brain. Then brain processes the raw signal, cutting the information input roughly in half right on arrival. After that brain choses the priority stimulus. Priority stimulus gets multiplied and magnified, other stimuli get multiplied less so, according to their respectve priority hierarchy. Then all of it gets sinced in order for you to not feel a delay - again, the taller you are, the higher is latency. Somewhere inbetween there is a double-check for a second signal from the receptors. The whole process takes from 100 to 300 milliseconds.

    But for all you know, all your receptors could be tricked by the toxic enviroinment, or alternatively there are no receptors at all and you're just what's left of the peculiar space-bunny from Proxima Centaura 4 and your brain is stimulated directly by the gastric juice of the space fox.
    Now live with it.
  3. TwoHourMotel

    TwoHourMotel Well-Known Member

    Honestly, I gave up on the whole "we could all be brains in a vat" or "we could all be a figment of someone's imagination" thing and you know what, after considering this philosophy for a while, I decided that I don't give a shit. Even if were all brains in a vat, or this existence is really an illusion and were videogame characters, it doesn't matter. I'll live my life based on what I perceive as reality. I admit that I don't know if I exist or not, but it doesn't really matter. For the time being, "I think, therefor I am" and that's good enough for me. I'll believe were brains in vats once somebody provides evidence outside of a philosophical argumentum.
  4. kildat017

    kildat017 Well-Known Member

    you just used the word "believe". which we all know it ties heavily to religion.

    I can say the same thing, with "believe" in it. example: I believe that Jesus was risen from the dead and therefore is excluded in my usual principle of humans having a reason to lie and deceive because they're subject to oxygen, water and food.

    your perception is not the basis of reality. your 5 senses is inefficient to observe reality.
  5. TwoHourMotel

    TwoHourMotel Well-Known Member


    Lol this is so fallacious I don't even know where to begin.

    I have more than 5 senses.

    Anyways my perception is not the basis of reality, obviously. My perception is the basis of my reality. I'll never be able to perceive reality from any other viewpoint as well as I will my own.
  6. kildat017

    kildat017 Well-Known Member

    To be frank, who cares about "your reality"?
  7. CAFO

    CAFO Well-Known Member

    That's not what belief means at all. A physicist believes in the gravitational constant because there's verifiable evidence in favor of it, but he also knows that at any point knew information could appear that contradicts previous test results. What you are describing as belief is more like faith. You believe in a higher power based on experiences you cannot provide to others or repeat, presumably even to yourself. The difference is philosophical: knowledge is 100% certainty and belief is anything less.

    To be frank, nobody says "to be frank" to preface a question.
  8. TwoHourMotel

    TwoHourMotel Well-Known Member

    Hmm, I do? Which is why my entire post was about me talking about what I believe and how I see my reality?
  9. kildat017

    kildat017 Well-Known Member

    then its safe to "believe" in the resurrection as there are eyewitness accounts.
  10. CAFO

    CAFO Well-Known Member

    No, don't worry, it's not like we're in the debate subforum or anything.

    Anecdotal evidence, while useful at times, is not very scientific. You're free to believe in Jesus God if you think that's enough, but nobody with half a brain is going to take you seriously if you use that as your thesis.
  11. kildat017

    kildat017 Well-Known Member

    sarcasm detector pls

    basically what you're saying is that reality is subjective. then Harry Potter is real?
  12. TwoHourMotel

    TwoHourMotel Well-Known Member

    Well of course it is subjective. A crazy person's reality is just as real to them as your reality is to you. Also, your version of reality wouldn't exist if you weren't there to experience it. You can't choose your reality.

    I'm going to need more than stories about people who claim they saw things happen if you want me to believe that.

    There are countless eyewitnesses who claim they saw the lochness monster as well, and considering I can go and talk to people alive today who claim they've seen it, it already has much more of a chance of being accurate than your thousand year old book.
  13. kildat017

    kildat017 Well-Known Member

  14. TwoHourMotel

    TwoHourMotel Well-Known Member

    Picture posts are strictly forbidden in this subforum. Also I have no idea what you're trying to say.
  15. kildat017

    kildat017 Well-Known Member

    Is that so? well ok.

    what that basically means is that "a thousand year old book" had no technological means to observe that the earth is, well not only round, but that it's hanging over nothing.

    when was the earth discovered that its being pulled by the sun's gravitational force? and heck, this claim could be wrong.
  16. TwoHourMotel

    TwoHourMotel Well-Known Member

    If someone wrote a science fact in Harry Potter, does it suddenly mean the rest of it is true?

    (Also, Eratosthenes died in 194 BC and discovered that the Earth was round.)
  17. CAFO

    CAFO Well-Known Member

    Not reality, but our interpretation of it.
  18. Lithary

    Lithary Well-Known Member

    Read the rules, but none of them confirm what you claim.
  19. TwoHourMotel

    TwoHourMotel Well-Known Member

    Like I said, it's in the rules of this subforum.

  20. kildat017

    kildat017 Well-Known Member

    I don't want "Ifs". I want facts.

    The difference is that Harry Potter was not written 2000 years ago unlike the bible. And 2000 years ago, there's practically no technology that could make anyone observe that the earth hanged on nothing.

    Lastly it was who discovered earth being round, and that was 1500s. the bible made its discovery 1500 earlier.